ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2018
Visual EEG reviewing times with SCORE EEG.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unsupervised clustering of electroclinical features in temporal lobe epilepsy: A data-driven approach.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026Article
- M2EEG-VR: Validation of EEG Visualization and Sonification for the Detection of Neonatal Seizures on a Virtual Reality Platform.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Real-world evaluation of an automated EEG spike detection software in a tertiary centre compared to a clinical reference standard.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Seizure detection using ultra-long-term subcutaneous electroencephalography: A deep learning CNN-BiLSTM approach.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- ENCEVIS: Evaluating the feasibility of an AI-based algorithm as an assistant to neurophysiologists in clinical practice.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Hierarchical Event Descriptor library schema for EEG data annotation.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Validation of a discrete electrographic seizure detection algorithm for extended-duration, reduced-channel wearable EEG.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Long-Term Neonatal EEG Modeling with DSP and ML for Grading Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy Injury.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Towards trustworthy seizure onset detection using workflow notes.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Channel-independent recreation of artefactual signals in chronically recorded local field potentials using machine learning.Brain informatics · 2022Article
- Moving the field forward: detection of epileptiform abnormalities on scalp electroencephalography using deep learning-clinical application perspectives.Brain communications · 2022Review
- EEG reporting: What's the score?Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2022Article
- Implementing the SCORE system improves the quality of clinical EEG reading.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2022Article
- SANTIA: a Matlab-based open-source toolbox for artifact detection and removal from extracellular neuronal signals.Brain informatics · 2021Article
- Cross-Modal Data Programming Enables Rapid Medical Machine Learning.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Weak supervision as an efficient approach for automated seizure detection in electroencephalography.NPJ digital medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVisual EEG analysis is the gold standard for clinical EEG interpretation and analysis, but there is no published data on how long it takes to review and report an EEG in clinical routine. Estimates of reporting times may inform workforce planning and automation initiatives for EEG. The SCORE standard has recently been adopted to standardize clinical EEG reporting, but concern has been expressed about the time spent reporting.
methodsElapsed times were extracted from 5889 standard and sleep-deprived EEGs reported between 2015 and 2017 reported using the SCORE EEG software.
resultsThe median review time for standard EEG was 12.5 min, and for sleep deprived EEG 20.9 min. A normal standard EEG had a median review time of 8.3 min. Abnormal EEGs took longer than normal EEGs to review, and had more variable review times. 99% of EEGs were reported within 24 h of end of recording. Review times declined by 25% during the study period.
conclusionStandard and sleep-deprived EEG review and reporting times with SCORE EEG are reasonable, increasing with increasing EEG complexity and decreasing with experience. EEG reports can be provided within 24 h. SIGNIFICANCE: Clinical standard and sleep-deprived EEG reporting with SCORE EEG has acceptable reporting times.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.